'Traditional Marriage'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Show me in the bible where a marriage consisted of not “one man and one woman”.

Read the quote provided in the original post.
[/quote]

Every marriage I’ve ever read in the bible was between 1 man and one woman. People in the bible were often permitted to have multiple marriages, but that is different.

There is no case where 1 man ever had a marriage (singular) to multiple women. Every “walk down the aisle” from the old testament to the new has been 1 man and 1 woman, 1 bride and 1 groom, 1 heterosexual couple being bound together.

122

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
God also permitted divorce at the time…which goes against the original plan…and isn’t cemented as moral law until Christ.

So you admit that marriage as commanded by God has changed over time rather than being a 5,000 year old unchanging institution?
[/quote]

God’s plan for marriage hasn’t changed. What was permitted has…Divorce, eye for an eye, polygamy. When did the “plan” become whole? In the eyes of Christians…oh, I don’t know…with Christ maybe?!

The old testament contains a mixture of permitted non-christian practices, practices moved closer to the Christian ideal (only an eye for any eye, instead of blood feuds wiping out families), and solid commandments.

One more time, the laws and morality of Christians were fullfilled with Christ not the old testament. Even your hated fundamentalists undertand this for the most part. Your dime store theology is of your own creation.

Your task is to show me where Christ commanded men to marry many wives, and thus “many become one flesh.”

“It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,” Jesus replied. 6"But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.’[a] 7’For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife (singular), 8and the two (no two or more?) will become one flesh.'[c] So they are no longer two (two is the sum of 1 plus 1), but one. 9Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

123

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That isn’t the case with homosexuality. You are allowed to marry and you have exercised that right. If there were a law that said homosexuals can’t marry, then yes it would be a rights violation as homosexuals would then have a different standard. But that isn’t the case.

We were talking about the right to marry the person you love, remember?

Is a law that outlaws cousins marrying discrimination against Muslims (even though the law is the same whether or not you are a Muslim)?

I’m talking about the legal right to choose one’s religion. People have that legal right, and it is a choice rather than a genetic predisposition. Get it?[/quote]

No, I get it, but it doesn’t compare to your struggle is what I’m saying. There is no law saying homosexuals can’t marry. There is a law that says no one can marry the same sex.

Many Muslims marry first cousins as is more their custom. Laws outlawing those marriages may effect them more, but they are still non-discriminatory laws.

Do those Muslims not have the right to marry the ones they love?

Is it a rights violation to outlaw all incest marriages? Even if it’s between consenting, loving adults?

NO! because that law doesn’t change whether or not you are a Muslim.

124

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
No one has the “right” to marry the one they love, some do have the privilege.

Call it what you want, the point is that gays are treated differently than heteros when it comes to their union being recognized by the federal government.

So are you saying it is a choice?

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

There is no law making homosexuality illegal last I checked so I don’t see your point with religion.

What if Christians weren’t allowed to marry, but Muslims were?[/quote]

Muslims kill gays, so I’d say the Christians get of easy.

125

[quote]Sloth wrote:
And, the humorous side-show of having a homosexual, atheist, divorcee preaching how Christians are supposed to read and understand the bible, isn’t lost on me.[/quote]

But he isn’t shoving his gay agenda down anybody’s throat.

He is after all exemplifying morality…Leave your family to have relations with a man…

126

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is no case where 1 man ever had a marriage (singular) to multiple women. Every “walk down the aisle” from the old testament to the new has been 1 man and 1 woman, 1 bride and 1 groom, 1 heterosexual couple being bound together.[/quote]

So “traditional marriage” allows for being married to lots of women, as long as the ceremony doesn’t happen at the same time?

Lol.

127

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There is no case where 1 man ever had a marriage (singular) to multiple women. Every “walk down the aisle” from the old testament to the new has been 1 man and 1 woman, 1 bride and 1 groom, 1 heterosexual couple being bound together.

So “traditional marriage” allows for being married to lots of women, as long as the ceremony doesn’t happen at the same time?

Lol.[/quote]

No what I’m saying is that they are separate marriages.

Can a person not love more than one person? Shouldn’t they have the “right” to marry the one(s) they love? If there is a “right” to marry whom you love, then you can’t prohibit, polygamy or incest either.

128

This thread is GAY!!!

130

Forlife,

I understand that you would like the world to believe that being gay is a genetic problem. I just know too many gays who were gay today and not tomorrow. They switch their gayness more than the weather.

Why do you think I don’t know my own scriptures? Just because I won’t engage you on the Polygamy issue? It’s a non issue in my opinion. We are talking about gay marriage. Not talking about a man getting married to one woman or many women. Is it a part of the history of the church? Yes, Do I understand the reason behind it? No, does it worry me in the slightest? No. I have enough problems with one wife, I could not even fathom trying to deal with more than one.

Allow me to clarify my comment, my wife has enough problems handling me. She is very beautiful and has put up with me for the last 17 years. I know my scriptures, I’m by no means a scriptorian, but I do read and study them.

Anyway, you can stay in your fairy tale world, and I’ll live in mine.

131

[quote]forlife wrote:
Sloth wrote:
God also permitted divorce at the time…which goes against the original plan…and isn’t cemented as moral law until Christ.

So you admit that marriage as commanded by God has changed over time rather than being a 5,000 year old unchanging institution?
[/quote]

I’ll admit to it. As long as you’ll admit that it remains heterosexual.

132

[quote]forlife wrote:

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

[/quote]

WHAT ???

If you honestly believe that somehow out of no-where there has appeared a gene that makes you erm wanna f*ck men then you have been taking it hard for FAR to long.

Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.

Look, if you REALLY want be excused for breaking it off with your wife to roger men, then DO NOT blame your genes, its like people blaming genes for not being able to gain weight… IT’S ALL YOU BUDDY, always has been always will be.

What it was when you went to the Doctor to get tested for cancer and when his finger slipped in there, it awoke the dormant “gene” and made you want it more and more ?

Please, spare people that dog crap of an argument, its YOU that decided to be gay, its YOU that decided you wanted to live outside “normal” relationship boundaries, enjoy it but don’t come here whining how your not entitled to this or that OF COURSE your not, HOW are your or your partner, furthering the human race by having but-sex ?

Marriage was intended tax exemptions and all, to encourage couples who had children to come together and the State would provide benefits to help along the family… as clearly neither your nor your partner will be having children, HOW are you entitled to the same benefits ?

Ugh, i HATE when people play the gene argument, as if mother nature intended men to f*ck each other YA RIGHT sure, only way i could see that was if Darwin is finally swinging into action and is hefting a HUGE dose of chlorine into the human gene pool, removing the men/women deemed unworthy of procreating and bringing life into this world… THAT would have better grounding than the “gay gene”

133

[quote]300andabove wrote:
forlife wrote:

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

WHAT ???

If you honestly believe that somehow out of no-where there has appeared a gene that makes you erm wanna f*ck men then you have been taking it hard for FAR to long.

Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.

Look, if you REALLY want be excused for breaking it off with your wife to roger men, then DO NOT blame your genes, its like people blaming genes for not being able to gain weight… IT’S ALL YOU BUDDY, always has been always will be.

What it was when you went to the Doctor to get tested for cancer and when his finger slipped in there, it awoke the dormant “gene” and made you want it more and more ?

Please, spare people that dog crap of an argument, its YOU that decided to be gay, its YOU that decided you wanted to live outside “normal” relationship boundaries, enjoy it but don’t come here whining how your not entitled to this or that OF COURSE your not, HOW are your or your partner, furthering the human race by having but-sex ?

Marriage was intended tax exemptions and all, to encourage couples who had children to come together and the State would provide benefits to help along the family… as clearly neither your nor your partner will be having children, HOW are you entitled to the same benefits ?

Ugh, i HATE when people play the gene argument, as if mother nature intended men to f*ck each other YA RIGHT sure, only way i could see that was if Darwin is finally swinging into action and is hefting a HUGE dose of chlorine into the human gene pool, removing the men/women deemed unworthy of procreating and bringing life into this world… THAT would have better grounding than the “gay gene”

[/quote]

Schizophrenia is genetic, autism is genetic, depression is genetic…Just becuase something is genetic, that doesn’t make the resultant effect of the genetic anomaly inherently good.

134

[quote]pat wrote:
300andabove wrote:
forlife wrote:

I’m pretty sure I just said that there is evidence for a genetic marker of homosexuality. Didn’t you mean it when you said that a genetic marker would make gay rights a valid civil rights issue akin to equal rights for racial minorities?

WHAT ???

If you honestly believe that somehow out of no-where there has appeared a gene that makes you erm wanna f*ck men then you have been taking it hard for FAR to long.

Seriously, besides some absolute and utter crackpot of a doctor, provide me with ONE source of evidence for that.

Look, if you REALLY want be excused for breaking it off with your wife to roger men, then DO NOT blame your genes, its like people blaming genes for not being able to gain weight… IT’S ALL YOU BUDDY, always has been always will be.

What it was when you went to the Doctor to get tested for cancer and when his finger slipped in there, it awoke the dormant “gene” and made you want it more and more ?

Please, spare people that dog crap of an argument, its YOU that decided to be gay, its YOU that decided you wanted to live outside “normal” relationship boundaries, enjoy it but don’t come here whining how your not entitled to this or that OF COURSE your not, HOW are your or your partner, furthering the human race by having but-sex ?

Marriage was intended tax exemptions and all, to encourage couples who had children to come together and the State would provide benefits to help along the family… as clearly neither your nor your partner will be having children, HOW are you entitled to the same benefits ?

Ugh, i HATE when people play the gene argument, as if mother nature intended men to f*ck each other YA RIGHT sure, only way i could see that was if Darwin is finally swinging into action and is hefting a HUGE dose of chlorine into the human gene pool, removing the men/women deemed unworthy of procreating and bringing life into this world… THAT would have better grounding than the “gay gene”

Schizophrenia is genetic, autism is genetic, depression is genetic…Just becuase something is genetic, that doesn’t make the resultant effect of the genetic anomaly inherently good. [/quote]

So things like murder, pedophilia, rape, violence, can be genetic and therefore excusable in people who can’t help it?

If who we are sexually attracted to is genetic and uncontrollable with will power, pedophiles shouldn’t be punished.

135

[quote]Sloth wrote:
The old testament contains a mixture of permitted non-christian practices, practices moved closer to the Christian ideal (only an eye for any eye, instead of blood feuds wiping out families), and solid commandments.
[/quote]

I’m pretty sure that when God directly tells people to marry more than one woman, that counts as a “solid commandment” rather than a “permitted non-christian practice”.

The point is that marriage between one man and one woman is not an exclusive 5,000 year old tradition like the fundies claim. At best, it is one of many traditions, including the tradition of polygamous marriage, which was divinely sanctioned in the old testament and continues to be practiced by certain cultures and religions today.

136

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
NO! because that law doesn’t change whether or not you are a Muslim.[/quote]

You keep confusing certain practices of Muslims with the CHOICE to be a Muslim. Federal law specifically prohibits discrimination against people that CHOOSE to be Muslim. They can still CHOOSE to be Muslim without fear of employment discrimination, etc. Federal law does not only offer protection for genetic factors, it also protects CHOICE.

137

[quote]pat wrote:
He is after all exemplifying morality…Leave your family to have relations with a man…[/quote]

If anything, my wife felt even more strongly about us getting a divorce than I did. But don’t let the facts get in the way of your homophobia :slight_smile:

138

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If there is a “right” to marry whom you love, then you can’t prohibit, polygamy or incest either.[/quote]

Your God specifically sanctioned polygamy and incest in your own holy book.

Not that I agree with him, but it’s your holy book not mine.

139

[quote]pat wrote:
This thread is GAY!!![/quote]

Best post you’ve made yet, thanks for the pic.

140

[quote]forlife wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
NO! because that law doesn’t change whether or not you are a Muslim.

You keep confusing certain practices of Muslims with the CHOICE to be a Muslim. Federal law specifically prohibits discrimination against people that CHOOSE to be Muslim. They can still CHOOSE to be Muslim without fear of employment discrimination, etc. Federal law does not only offer protection for genetic factors, it also protects CHOICE.[/quote]

Your analogy is terrible. The situations you are bringing up about religion don’t mimic yours at all as I’ve pointed out each time.

I’m setting up religious analogies that make sense for the situation.

Yes I can choose to be a Muslim, and I could choose to be gay. However, making either of those choices doesn’t get me out of obeying the universal legal standard. Even if I choose Islam marrying a cousin is still prohibited (most places), even if I’m gay same sex marriage is still prohibited.